¶1
Defendant Anthony Thomas Wood appeals his sentences in this
consolidated appeal from two separate cases. He argues that
the district court exceeded its discretion when it sentenced
him to prison rather than probation. He also argues that the
court exceeded its discretion by ordering the sentences in
the two cases to run consecutively. We affirm.

¶2
In August 2015, the State charged Wood with aggravated
kidnapping and aggravated robbery, both first degree
felonies, and aggravated assault, a second degree felony,
based on events that occurred in May 2014 (the Assault case).
The victim (Victim) in that case alleged that when she
dropped Wood off after dinner one night, Wood took her keys
and ran into his apartment. Victim chased him inside, at
which point Wood "began striking her in the head and
chok[ing] her." Wood's girlfriend (Girlfriend) also
joined in the assault. At one point during the attack, Wood
"produced a gun, held it to [Victim's] head and
threatened to kill her." Wood and Girlfriend then
"forced [Victim] to remain in a back bedroom" for
several hours. During that time, Wood and Girlfriend forced
Victim to provide information about her bank account so that
they could withdraw money from it. Eventually, after
withdrawing money from Victim's bank account, Wood and
Girlfriend let Victim take her car and go.

¶3
In January 2016, the State charged Wood in a separate case
with five counts of possession of forged writing, all third
degree felonies, based on events that occurred in June 2015
(the Forgery case). The charges were supported by statements
that police had "located several counterfeit U.S.
bills" in Wood's bedroom. In addition, a cab driver
stated that Wood had paid his cab fare with a $100
counterfeit bill.

¶4
In March 2016, Wood pleaded guilty in both cases. For the
Assault case, Wood pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated
assault, a third degree felony, admitting that he
"threatened the use of a firearm while assaulting
another individual." For the Forgery case, Wood pleaded
guilty to two counts of possession of forged writing, both
third degree felonies, admitting that he "possessed two
counterfeit bills."

¶5
The district court sentenced Wood on both cases in May 2016.
In anticipation of sentencing, Adult Probation and Parole
(AP&P) prepared a presentence report (the PSR). The PSR
contained information about the factual circumstances
underlying each case as well as information specific to Wood,
such as his criminal history, his probation history, and
other factors relevant to a sentencing determination.
AP&P noted that Wood "expressed a desire for
probation" but nonetheless recommended that Wood be
committed to prison. AP&P stated that while Wood was
"cooperative during his interview, " "the
circumstances surrounding the assault on [Victim] were
egregious." It noted that Wood "demonstrated little
remorse for [Victim], " believing that his "only
offense was 'breaking [Victim's] heart.'"
And it noted that after the assault, Wood "continued to
participate in criminal behavior, " which persuaded
AP&P that "increased sanctions . . . [were]
appropriate."

¶6
Although Wood requested probation at sentencing, the district
court sentenced him to prison. The court ordered him to serve
zero to five years for the aggravated assault as well as zero
to five years for each count in the Forgery case. The court
ordered the sentences in the Forgery case to run
concurrently, but it ordered the sentences for the Assault
case and the Forgery case to run consecutively.

¶7
In rejecting Wood's request for probation, the court
explained that "there are some offenses that involve
facts and circumstances that are disturbing enough . . . that
prison is the appropriate sentence, " and the court
stated that "this [was] one of those cases." The
court explained that Wood's behavior in the aggravated
assault "essentially amount[ed] to torture [of Victim]
that extend[ed] over a significant period of time, " and
it stated that the crime was "bad enough that the tools
. . . available to [the court] in terms of imposing probation
are really not enough to capture the gravity of the
crime." In doing so, the court recognized that
Girlfriend was given probation for her involvement in the
assault. However, the court distinguished Girlfriend's
circumstances, noting that Girlfriend had a "different
criminal history and a different subsequent pattern of
criminal behavior" from Wood and that Wood, not
Girlfriend, was "essentially the instigator" of the
assault.

¶8
The court also explained why it imposed concurrent sentences
for each of the Forgery case counts but consecutive sentences
as between the Assault case and the Forgery case. The court
first reviewed the statutory factors it was required to
consider under Utah Code section 76-3-401 in deciding whether
to impose consecutive sentences. See Utah Code Ann.
§ 76-3-401(2) (LexisNexis 2017) (explaining that
"[i]n determining whether state offenses are to run
concurrently or consecutively, the court shall consider the
gravity and circumstances of the offenses, the number of
victims, and the history, character, and rehabilitative needs
of the defendant"). For the forgery counts, the court
explained that it imposed concurrent sentences because, while
"serious, " those counts were "lesser offenses
compared to the aggravated assault, " and they
"occurred in a relatively discrete period of time and
appeared to arise from the same pattern of poor decision
making."

¶9
The court then explained that the sentence for the aggravated
assault count "should be consecutive" to the
Forgery case in light of the "nature, gravity, and
circumstances." The court stated that the assault was
"really troublesome" and that "it occurred at
a different time and it involved a different type of conduct
than the forgery offenses." The court also explained
that "the number of victims" supported running the
sentences consecutively-that there were two victims
"when you put the forgery charges together with the
victim of the assault" and that the victim of the
assault "would be most severely traumatized by what
occurred." The court acknowledged that while Wood's
history suggested some leniency might be appropriate,
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.